Why can't anyone who likes Gore just stand up and say I like him but he's doing a crappy job on this matter? I just don't get it! From what I've read, he lives in a home that is 10,000 square feet, large but not 20x larger then the average house. Regardless, why is someone who advocates minimizing the impact on the environment living in a home that requires 18,414 kWh per month of energy? Why is it wrong to ask that? It doesn't make him a terrible guy, it just means he isn't exactly walking the walking on the issue, which was the point of the article.

I thought this article was interesting too. David was a producer for Gore’s movie and is active as an environmentalist.

Writing in The Atlantic Monthly in 2004, liberal writer Eric Alterman criticized producer Laurie David for her use of private Gulfstream jets. David, he wrote "reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable." New Republic writer Gregg Easterbrook followed up, computing that "one cross-country flight in a Gulfstream is the same, in terms of Persian-Gulf dependence and greenhouse-gas emissions, as if she drove a Hummer for an entire year." In an interview in 2006, David told ABC News that she was limiting her use of private planes and was flying commercial far more frequently.

I understand that is more inconvenient for her to, God-forbid, fly commercial but isn’t that the point?

I think if anything, pointing these things out helps the environment. Why are so many defending him? Say to Gore (and everyone else) I want you to do a better job!

This isn't the best article but specifies the response and defense from the backlash.

I wouldn't say that I'm defending Gore, personally. But people are absolutely right when they say he is bringing awareness and educating people. The reason he is popular is the fact that he has mainstreamed a message that was once reserved for so-called ''environmental extremists'' or ''alarmists''. Even teenagers know about this movie, that is sending a powerful message to our future. I think it says something that he invests and uses renewable energy sources at all. If we are comparing, I don't think the Average american household is accomplishing that much.

I just copy/pasted the story for the link above. I think it's important and wanted to be sure everyone read it. Thanks Bennismama.

Updated: 4:50 p.m. ET Feb 28, 2007
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Following criticism by a conservative group of Al Gore's large home energy consumption, a Gore spokeswoman defended the former vice president's lifestyle, saying he invests in enough renewable energy to make up for the home's power consumption.

On Sunday, Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth," which chronicled his campaign against global warming, won an Academy Award.

The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption, and hence emissions of carbon dioxide. The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem.

"We wanted to see if he was living by his own recommendations and walking the walk," said think tank president Drew Johnson.

Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.

The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press. The typical Nashville household uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

The group said that Gore used nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was $1,359. Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.

But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said that "sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger."

Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

Gore, who also owns a home in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I've read all the explanations, and they don't make sense to me....but remember I'm one of the simplistic ones. Like this quote:

Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

What does that mean??? Are they saying he uses that much electricity but ALSO used more energy but it's solar, wind, etc??? Or are they saying he uses that much energy but he also contributes energy?? I don't really understand their explanation (not being sarcastic....really don't understand it). Perhaps if someone could explain in a very simplistic way what that means I might not think it was so bad. TIA

If you check on your electric bill, you will see an option that will allow you to buy your electricity through renewable sources. You pay a higher amount of money to do it. This is what I believe they are saying.

We have several businesses in town that purchase 100% of their power from wind power. They pay more, but are not buying fossil fuels to run their buildings. I live about 45 minutes from Wyoming, the windyest (sp?) place on earth (IMO). We have a lot of wind to use for power.

I do think it's hypocritical. I personally don't think you have to be a democrat to be an environmentalist, either. This isn't a partisan issue to me.

I don't really think it matters that his energy is coming from renewable sources. There is still an environmental cost to "green" sources as well. Here in MN, where there are ethanol plants, it is said that it takes a lot of coal to even produce ethanol. I'm not sure about the stats on hydroelectricity or wind-generated power, but I think the shocking factor is that he's using SO MUCH OF IT. WHY?

Don't get me wrong, this isn't about "attacking the messenger" or bashing Al Gore. I've seen the movie and applaud the awareness he's bringing to the topic. After seeing his movie I've done a lot in my own household to "go green". I just think environmentalism (or any other issue you're championing, for that matter) has to begin at home. Hasn't he seen the bumper sticker "Think Globally, Act Locally"? Seems he has it the other way around.

Maybe he should have Ed Begley take his place on the Power Point tour circuit.

Slightly off topic, but speaking of ethanol.... It's totally a bad plan!!! We have an ethanol plant being built right here in our town. More fossil fuel is used in the production than the end product that is produced. We are gaining nothing. The reason there are so many ethanol companies being built right now is because the government is subsidizing it. The investors get 90% back from their investments from the government, so they are out nothing. Right now we are using 20% of our nations grain to produce 1% of our usage of ethanol. If we used 100% of our possible grain production, we would only be taking care of 7% of our usage. All the while, what we are doing is making corn a more expensive commodity. Corn is in everything, try to think of a food w/o corn syrup in it. This is also going to make our food bills sky rocket. Bad plan plain and simple!

As for the whole Al Gore thing....I'm going to just agree to disagree. There are some topics that we are all just to firmly opposed on to have friendly discussions.